Magnetic resonance imaging findings of high-grade ductal carcinoma in situ of the male breast: A case report.

Ductal carcinoma in situ in men is incredibly rare and detection by conventional mammography and ultrasound is often challenging. We report an unusual case of a 50-year-old male, with no family history of breast cancer, who presented with an 8-year history of left-sided breast pain and recurrent bloody nipple discharge without any significant suspicious imaging features in mammography and targeted high-resolution ultrasound. Breast magnetic resonance imaging was performed as an adjunct modality. Magnetic resonance imaging findings revealed a suspicious retroareolar non-mass abnormality of segmental, linear and dendritic pattern, which was highly suspicious for a ductal carcinoma in situ. Stereotactic guided biopsy and subsequent mastectomy were consistent with pure high-grade ductal carcinoma in situ of the left breast. Overall, this case highlights the challenges in diagnosing ductal carcinoma in situ in men and demonstrates the importance for further investigating clinical suspicions of the male breast.

Use of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography for intramammary cancer staging: preliminary results.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To prospectively evaluate and compare the accuracy of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) and ultrasound (US) in size measurement of breast cancer with histologic tumor sizes as gold standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty women aged between 40-73 years (mean age, 57 ± 10 years) with histologically proven invasive ductal/lobular carcinomas were included in the study. Agreement between imaging tumor size (CESM and US) and histopathologic tumor size was evaluated with Bland-Altman analysis. Stereotactically guided vacuum biopsy was performed in four patients after CESM. Two independent reviewers described artifacts of CESM. RESULTS: Motion artifacts did not occur in the study. CESM-specific artifacts caused by scattered radiation mostly occurred in oblique view of CESM. Background enhancement of breast tissue was seen in four patients. Mean difference of tumor sizes was 0.3 mm (6.34%) between CESM and histology and -2.2 mm (-7.59%) between US and histology. Limits of agreement ranged from -18.9 to 19.48 mm for CESM and from -17.1 to 12.7 mm with US. Especially smaller tumors with a size <23 mm were measured more precisely with CESM. Enhancement of breast tissue around microcalcifications correlated with abnormalities. CONCLUSIONS: CESM is accurate in size measurements of small breast tumors. On average CESM leads to a slight overestimation of tumor size, whereas US tends to underestimate tumor size. Assessment of the breast tissue can be limited by the scattered radiation artifact and background enhancement of breast tissue. CESM seems to be helpful in the characterization of breast tissue around microcalcifications.